The Brexit aftermath thread

[ranzino]

What? What does this have to do with... well, anything?

read Theresa May's babbling today on her tour to the 4 nations perhaps ? UK is, by its very own government, totally clueless and where she sees a bright future is her very own secret IMHO. So please, end this farce, jump off your beloved cliff and eat your cake while doing so.

[Pann]

read Theresa May's babbling today on her tour to the 4 nations perhaps ? UK is, by its very own government, totally clueless and where she sees a bright future is her very own secret IMHO.

Right? So what that does have to do Amalaric's champagne consumption? I know you need to get your UK bashing in somehow but when did May moan about or insult the EU?

[Deleted]

Seeing as a 21 month transition period has been agreed and is presently planned this comes as news to no-one.

Brexit was a ploy to shut the 'kippers up which backfired.

It's pretty clear that the Leavers came in three varieties, those who wanted to leave, those who wanted to use it to extract more concessions, and those who wanted to use it as a stepping stone in their careers.

[Slant]

It's pretty clear that the Leavers came in three varieties, those who wanted to leave, those who wanted to use it to extract more concessions, and those who wanted to use it as a stepping stone in their careers.

You're forgetting those that wanted their money back. I'm sure there are a few loonies that actually believed it... lol

[Deleted]

You're forgetting those that wanted their money back. I'm sure there are a few loonies that actually believed it... lol

There is another group i forgot, but it's basically everyone, Those who don't understand the EU.

[Slant]

There is another group i forgot, but it's basically everyone, Those who don't understand the EU.

My evil self wants to agree with you, but there are quite a number of people who understand the EU just fine. Their handicap is that they're drowned out by people screaming "no experts!"

[Noradin]

My evil self wants to agree with you, but there are quite a number of people who understand the EU just fine. Their handicap is that they're drowned out by people screaming "no experts!"

The problem with this is that "experts" are commonly chosen by acclamation, thus anyone can be called an "expert".
Especially those one wants to silence because they spread truths one does not like to hear.

[Slant]

The problem with this is that "experts" are commonly chosen by acclamation, thus anyone can be called an "expert".
Especially those one wants to silence because they spread truths one does not like to hear.

Yes, well... I distinguish between "media experts", who usually really know jack shit and barely get to say more than two sentences confirming the bias the commentator scripted them to confirm... and actual scientists and politicians that actually know what's going on. So, when they said Brexit was bad on ITV, because some blogshitter said so, that's silly and he should be ignored based out of principle... but there was a lecture by a lawyer or economics professor where he detailed exactly how the roadmap looks like for Britain, and that was some truly scary stuff. And so far, most of the bullet points that I remember happened or are looking to happen soon. Those are the actual experts that one should listen to. Because they're specialists.

Furthermore... and this is the crucial bit. These are the experts that are doing the actual manual work in the negotiations, the trade deals and the decision making. So, you may agree or disagree with them, but when they think it'd be a smart idea to start moving critical sections of your global bank firm to mainland Europe, they will do it... whether or not you agree with them. When they think they need to cave to EU demands, because the EU not only has the bigger lever, but also because they have no actual argument, strategy or heck, reasonable demands on their own, they will also do this whether or not you agree with the general idea of the Brexit.

That's the insane part of all of this. The experts warned everyone about the consequences they would have to implement! But hey, let's ignore the experts, the guys that do the actual stuff that makes economies tick. What do they know, eh?

[Noradin]

Experts are still named such by acclamation, no matter if they are scientists, politicans, or pretenders.
It is not a title that comes with any standarized testing. It is always by reference and acclamation.

That is not a bad thing, it is how it must work, but it can be abused.

[Kiri]

Yes, well... I distinguish between "media experts", who usually really know jack shit and barely get to say more than two sentences confirming the bias the commentator scripted them to confirm... and actual scientists and politicians that actually know what's going on. So, when they said Brexit was bad on ITV, because some blogshitter said so, that's silly and he should be ignored based out of principle... but there was a lecture by a lawyer or economics professor where he detailed exactly how the roadmap looks like for Britain, and that was some truly scary stuff. And so far, most of the bullet points that I remember happened or are looking to happen soon. Those are the actual experts that one should listen to. Because they're specialists.

Furthermore... and this is the crucial bit. These are the experts that are doing the actual manual work in the negotiations, the trade deals and the decision making. So, you may agree or disagree with them, but when they think it'd be a smart idea to start moving critical sections of your global bank firm to mainland Europe, they will do it... whether or not you agree with them. When they think they need to cave to EU demands, because the EU not only has the bigger lever, but also because they have no actual argument, strategy or heck, reasonable demands on their own, they will also do this whether or not you agree with the general idea of the Brexit.

That's the insane part of all of this. The experts warned everyone about the consequences they would have to implement! But hey, let's ignore the experts, the guys that do the actual stuff that makes economies tick. What do they know, eh?

Those people are pretty much everyone's soccer obsessed uncle/dad who blames every loss on the coach and says he could do a better job. Brexit feels a bit like Homer Simpson getting Ned Flanders to step down as coach, only they don't have to fill the empty spot themselves, when called upon.

[Triks]

Why is this problem? It's not as if it is an official policy or there is any prospect of it happening. And isn't it just taking the backstop to its logical conclusion?

- - - Updated - - -



Seeing as a 21 month transition period has been agreed and is presently planned this comes as news to no-one.

Brexit was a ploy to shut the 'kippers up which backfired.

It was both actually. Cameron wanted more opt-outs, particularly on immigration. His and UKIP's wet dream was a UK-EU relationship where there was freedom of movement for Britons only and the ability to use the single market and customs union but for the UK to have its own independent trade policy outside of the common framework.

If he had won his little poll, he might have accomplished something on immigration.

[Pann]

It was both actually. Cameron wanted more opt-outs, particularly on immigration. His and UKIP's wet dream was a UK-EU relationship where there was freedom of movement for Britons only and the ability to use the single market and customs union but for the UK to have its own independent trade policy outside of the common framework.

If he had won his little poll, he might have accomplished something on immigration.

No, it wasn't. For starters Cameron was pro-EU and led the remain campaign hardly the mark of someone whose wet dream was for freedom of movement to apply to the British only or for Britain to have its own independent trade policy outside of the common framework whilst still being able to use the single market and customs union. You also have to wonder why if he was as anti freedom of movement, as you seem to believe, the Cons never enforced EU immigration rules that allowed out of work migrants to be removed from the UK.

Secondly Cameron's proposals to the EU were, for the most part, a bluff designed to stem the UKIP tide and the appease the Euro-sceptic wing of the Con party. Although it was never going to happen had the EU offered concessions on immigration it would have likely dealt a massive blow to UKIP's momentum and quietened the Con anti-EU fringe.

However the accepted wisdom at the time was that Cons would not get a majority in the 2015 GE and they would, if they were to retain power, have to enter in a coalition with the Lib Dems who would never allow a referendum on EU membership and as a result the Cons would have to drop this pledge allowing Cameron to claim that he had tried but his hands were tied by the Lib Dems.

[Triks]

No, it wasn't. For starters Cameron was pro-EU and led the remain campaign hardly the mark of someone whose wet dream was for freedom of movement to apply to the British only or for Britain to have its own independent trade policy outside of the common framework whilst still being able to use the single market and customs union. You also have to wonder why if he was as anti freedom of movement, as you seem to believe, the Cons never enforced EU immigration rules that allowed out of work migrants to be removed from the UK.

Secondly Cameron's proposals to the EU were, for the most part, a bluff designed to stem the UKIP tide and the appease the Euro-sceptic wing of the Con party. Although it was never going to happen had the EU offered concessions on immigration it would have likely dealt a massive blow to UKIP's momentum and quietened the Con anti-EU fringe.

However the accepted wisdom at the time was that Cons would not get a majority in the 2015 GE and they would, if they were to retain power, have to enter in a coalition with the Lib Dems who would never allow a referendum on EU membership and as a result the Cons would have to drop this pledge allowing Cameron to claim that he had tried but his hands were tied by the Lib Dems.

Cameron was so pro-Europe that he took the British Conservative party out of the mainstream center-right party in the European parliament - the European People's Party - and made his own Eurosceptic alliance - the European Conservatives and Reformists, a lovely bunch that contained Lega Nord and a whole host of other fringe parties. Cameron always wanted the UK to have a special status within the EU and always be kind of there and on the decision table but never to be a full member. He was never a wacko like Farage who would like to see the EU dismantled but he was always a Eurosceptic.

In his last negotiation with the EU he managed to secure an emergency break on both the closer union and certain migrant entitlements, a special status in regards to Euro-zone bailouts and financial aid (as in the UK won't be obliged to bailout counties like Greece and Italy) and a reduction in single-market regulation. Does this sound like a person that believed in the EU or its principles? I am not saying he should have been Macron or Merkel but he clearly had a vision of the UK being one-foot-in and one-foot-out of the bloc.

The wisdom that the analysts in the UK had in 2015 was insane. UKIP and The Conservatives are/were ideological blood-brothers with UKIP harnessing the anti-immigration rhetoric because their economic platform was more of the same that brought the working person of the world to absolute ruin. UKIP was a problem of your Labour party which was more concerned with, predominantly, middle-class issues such as feminism and gender identity. Those are good causes but good luck explaining them to a father of 3 who has been unemployed for the last year or so. The Liberal Democrats made the mistake of backing austerity, so in 2015 you had the same economic platform for all of the parties with their stances on immigration being the main difference. The Conservatives would have either won a majority (which they did because they hoovered up the UKIP vote) or made a coalition with UKIP, if they hadn't announced a referendum.

At this point in time, only David Cameron himself knows why he backed "Remain". I'd wager that he did it more to beat Johnson into submission and score major brownie points with middle-class Blair supporters and Liberal Democrats who are Europhile without question. Him and George Osborne were economic incompetents but both of them realised what the single market and customs union meant for the British heavy industry and financial services and the infrastructure around them. They also knew that the UK's best ally in the world was the USA and EU and Russia being Russia, they needed to stick together, at least for now.

As to why your government didn't enforce the anti-immigration laws and regulations - pure incompetence. They always could but they just didn't want to.

[Pann]

Cameron was so pro-Europe that he took the British Conservative party out of the mainstream center-right party in the European parliament - the European People's Party - and made his own Eurosceptic alliance - the European Conservatives and Reformists, a lovely bunch that contained Lega Nord and a whole host of other fringe parties. Cameron always wanted the UK to have a special status within the EU and always be kind of there and on the decision table but never to be a full member. He was never a wacko like Farage who would like to see the EU dismantled but he was always a Eurosceptic.

In his last negotiation with the EU he managed to secure an emergency break on both the closer union and certain migrant entitlements, a special status in regards to Euro-zone bailouts and financial aid (as in the UK won't be obliged to bailout counties like Greece and Italy) and a reduction in single-market regulation. Does this sound like a person that believed in the EU or its principles? I am not saying he should have been Macron or Merkel but he clearly had a vision of the UK being one-foot-in and one-foot-out of the bloc.

The wisdom that the analysts in the UK had in 2015 was insane. UKIP and The Conservatives are/were ideological blood-brothers with UKIP harnessing the anti-immigration rhetoric because their economic platform was more of the same that brought the working person of the world to absolute ruin. UKIP was a problem of your Labour party which was more concerned with, predominantly, middle-class issues such as feminism and gender identity. Those are good causes but good luck explaining them to a father of 3 who has been unemployed for the last year or so. The Liberal Democrats made the mistake of backing austerity, so in 2015 you had the same economic platform for all of the parties with their stances on immigration being the main difference. The Conservatives would have either won a majority (which they did because they hoovered up the UKIP vote) or made a coalition with UKIP, if they hadn't announced a referendum.

At this point in time, only David Cameron himself knows why he backed "Remain". I'd wager that he did it more to beat Johnson into submission and score major brownie points with middle-class Blair supporters and Liberal Democrats who are Europhile without question. Him and George Osborne were economic incompetents but both of them realised what the single market and customs union meant for the British heavy industry and financial services and the infrastructure around them. They also knew that the UK's best ally in the world was the USA and EU and Russia being Russia, they needed to stick together, at least for now.

As to why your government didn't enforce the anti-immigration laws and regulations - pure incompetence. They always could but they just didn't want to.

The European Conservatives and Reformists oppose a European Superstate and wish to reform the EU but they against the breakup of the union.

An ever closer union is not a universally popular policy throughout Europe nor does being against this go hand in hand with being anti-EU. The UK is not in the Euro-zone it is perfectly reasonable that it should not be held responsible should Greece have defaulted on its loans although it had in the past bailed out Euro-zone countries.

The problem is not what was thought at the time in the UK but your understanding of UK politics. UKIP and the Cons are far from ideological blood brothers. To be honest what you have written about the political landscape in the UK is such nonsense I simply don't know where to start and I really can't be bothered trying to unravel it.

Unless Cameron had a working crystal ball your theory about beating Johnson is yet more nonsense and simply does not stack up.

So in your own words the UK government "didn't want to" to enforce immigration laws but rather bizarrely they wanted "freedom of movement for Britons only"?!?

[Triks]

The European Conservatives and Reformists oppose a European Superstate and wish to reform the EU but they against the breakup of the union.

An ever closer union is not a universally popular policy throughout Europe nor does being against this go hand in hand with being anti-EU. The UK is not in the Euro-zone it is perfectly reasonable that it should not be held responsible should Greece have defaulted on its loans although it had in the past bailed out Euro-zone countries.

The problem is not what was thought at the time in the UK but your understanding of UK politics. UKIP and the Cons are far from ideological blood brothers. To be honest what you have written about the political landscape in the UK is such nonsense I simply don't know where to start and I really can't be bothered trying to unravel it.

Unless Cameron had a working crystal ball your theory about beating Johnson is yet more nonsense and simply does not stack up.

So in your own words the UK government "didn't want to" to enforce immigration laws but rather bizarrely they wanted "freedom of movement for Britons only"?!?

This is Lega Nord:
https://www.express.co.uk/news/world...lvini-eurozone

This is about IMRO/VMRO (at least partially):
http://balkanist.net/bulgarias-far-r...der-the-radar/

At the first chance, VMRO sent our planes to be repaired in Russia and think that Europeans are "soft" and "not manly".

These are the parties that Cameron decided to surround himself with in the European parliament. They range from soft Eurosceptics to hard Eurosceptics but not to the extremes of Front National and UKIP.

The whole idea behind the European union is solidarity - richer countries pump money into poorer countries, until the poorer countries can become self-sufficient and net contributors. Cameron and his Conservatives did not believe in this principle.

This is UKIP's economic platform:
http://www.ukip.org/ukip_manifesto_summary


This is the Conservatives' economic platform:
https://www.conservatives.com/manifesto2015

This is Nigel Farage on Margaret Thatcher:
https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/po...cherism-alive/

"I realised then that I was never a Tory. I was a Thatcherite."

UKIP and the Conservatives have the same lineage and economic ideas - low taxes, austerity and privatisation of state industry.

Boris Johnson vs David Cameron:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-a6891856.html
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-a6890016.html

John Major on Boris Johnson vs Cameron (starts at 12:40):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YX1wTr_09QA


You guys want to have vacation in Spain but don't want to go through passport control but want others to go through said checks:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...OUR-hours.html

[Pann]

This is Lega Nord:
https://www.express.co.uk/news/world...lvini-eurozone

This is about IMRO/VMRO (at least partially):
http://balkanist.net/bulgarias-far-r...der-the-radar/

At the first chance, VMRO sent our planes to be repaired in Russia and think that Europeans are "soft" and "not manly".

These are the parties that Cameron decided to surround himself with in the European parliament. They range from soft Eurosceptics to hard Eurosceptics but not to the extremes of Front National and UKIP.

The whole idea behind the European union is solidarity - richer countries pump money into poorer countries, until the poorer countries can become self-sufficient and net contributors. Cameron and his Conservatives did not believe in this principle.

This is UKIP's economic platform:
http://www.ukip.org/ukip_manifesto_summary


This is the Conservatives' economic platform:
https://www.conservatives.com/manifesto2015

This is Nigel Farage on Margaret Thatcher:
https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/po...cherism-alive/

"I realised then that I was never a Tory. I was a Thatcherite."

UKIP and the Conservatives have the same lineage and economic ideas - low taxes, austerity and privatisation of state industry.

Boris Johnson vs David Cameron:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-a6891856.html
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-a6890016.html

John Major on Boris Johnson vs Cameron (starts at 12:40):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YX1wTr_09QA


You guys want to have vacation in Spain but don't want to go through passport control but want others to go through said checks:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...OUR-hours.html

Cameron is not responsible for parties that are not his own and certainly not for parties in other countries. The suggestion that he was anti-EU because of the conduct of another party in an entirely different country would be comical if it were not for the utter foolishness.

You are making things up. If this was true Cameron would not have campaigned to remain.

Your point is yet more nonsense. The Cons and Labour had some policies that were similar - no-one would claim that they are ideologically aligned.

You claimed Cameron's support for remain was "I'd wager that he did it more to beat Johnson into submission and score major brownie points..." this is simply not possible, unless Cameron had the ability to see into the future, as he was already leading the remain campaign before Johnson's surprise support for leave.

Riiight.... The article does not even say that! And how does this relate to your claim about the UK wanting to stop freedom movement despite their actions, not enforcing existing controls, painting a very different picture.

Quite frankly it appears as if you have no idea what you are talking about.

[Nigel Tufnel]

The whole idea behind the European union is solidarity - richer countries pump money into poorer countries, until the poorer countries can become self-sufficient and net contributors. Cameron and his Conservatives did not believe in this principle.

Right - so, in the complete absence of fiscal union, richer country A whose inhabitants pay lots of tax and retire when they're 65 should happily "pump money" into poorer country B whose inhabitants pay little or no tax and retire when they're 58?

In the absence of fiscal union, please do not frame "solidarity" in those terms.

"Solidarity" as defined by the *founders* 60 years ago: avoiding the horrors of another European war, united front in the face of threat from the East, a counterbalance to the economic might of the US: all fine by me.

[Noradin]

Cameron is not responsible for parties that are not his own and certainly not for parties in other countries. The suggestion that he was anti-EU because of the conduct of another party in an entirely different country would be comical if it were not for the utter foolishness.

You really have the problem with reading that you constantly accuse others of having, don't you.
Nobody claimed he was responsible for other parties.
But straw must be plentiful where you are.

[Triks]

Cameron is not responsible for parties that are not his own and certainly not for parties in other countries. The suggestion that he was anti-EU because of the conduct of another party in an entirely different country would be comical if it were not for the utter foolishness.

You are making things up. If this was true Cameron would not have campaigned to remain.

Your point is yet more nonsense. The Cons and Labour had some policies that were similar - no-one would claim that they are ideologically aligned.

You claimed Cameron's support for remain was "I'd wager that he did it more to beat Johnson into submission and score major brownie points..." this is simply not possible, unless Cameron had the ability to see into the future, as he was already leading the remain campaign before Johnson's surprise support for leave.

Riiight.... The article does not even say that! And how does this relate to your claim about the UK wanting to stop freedom movement despite their actions, not enforcing existing controls, painting a very different picture.

Quite frankly it appears as if you have no idea what you are talking about.

Cameron's Conservative party was one of the founding members of that group - he was the one who took them out of the mainstream center-right alliance and into the Eurosceptic fold. It was his choice to make that group, nobody else's.

Go back to my original post - "at this point only David Cameron himself knows why he supported Remain". His history up to that point was that of a Eurosceptic. He was claiming to go to Brussels to "battle for Britain". He was actively seeking more opt-outs from the EU and he wanted to settle the score within his party and see off challengers such as Johnson. The man was "Remain" for personal gain and nothing more.

The Cons and Labour both supported austerity and Cameron's Conservatives were socially progressive. Both of your mainstream parties ended up meeting somewhere on the right. Why do you think your youth were so invigorated by Corbyn - they were tired of the whole Blairite slop that the party was peddling. One of the few posities of Brexit is that you currently have a clearly-defined right and left, instead of Conservatives and purple Conservatives.

The article clearly highlights the double-standards of the UK populance - you guys want freedom of movement within the continent but you don't want that to be receprocated.

- - - Updated - - -

Right - so, in the complete absence of fiscal union, richer country A whose inhabitants pay lots of tax and retire when they're 65 should happily "pump money" into poorer country B whose inhabitants pay little or no tax and retire when they're 58?

In the absence of fiscal union, please do not frame "solidarity" in those terms.

"Solidarity" as defined by the *founders* 60 years ago: avoiding the horrors of another European war, united front in the face of threat from the East, a counterbalance to the economic might of the US: all fine by me.

You can have immigration or you can have country "B" not be a total shithole. Your choice.

PS - cool chord but I am a fan of 13's when it comes to dominants :P .

[Nigel Tufnel]

You can have immigration or you can have country "B" not be a total shithole. Your choice.

Ahh - but I didn't say I don't want immigration. I do, I always have done.

They're entirely different things - a) supporting free movement & b) and pointing out the problems the lack of fiscal union causes. And this is the fundamental point for me: good luck on achieving this fiscal union and the a single policy on taxes and spending. 'Coz you've got absolutely no chance of getting member states to agree. There are way too many deep-seated cultural differences. You could enforce it on people but then there would be social unrest.

That is the problem for me. IMO ever closer union isn't achievable and the pursuit of it is pointless.

PS - cool chord but I am a fan of 13's when it comes to dominants :P .

I love the crunchiness of a good 7#9, but you can never use it as V of I. Yep, much better use a 13